Taylor v. Olsen

Oregon Supreme Court · 1978 · Torts

578 P.2d 779 (Or. 1978)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortslandowner liabilityroadside treesnegligencereasonable careduty to inspectlatent decayland possessor

Facts

On a dark and windy January evening, plaintiff's car hit a tree that had shortly before splintered and fallen across a Clackamas County road. Olsen had bought the adjoining land for logging and, during the five or six weeks before the accident, had logged about half the timber on his land, including trees adjacent to the fallen tree, which stood on the county right-of-way. The road carried about 790 vehicles per day. After the fall, the tree was found to have internal decay at the center of the trunk, but the decay did not extend through the bark or to the surface except perhaps in a few places, and there was no evidence of exterior signs of decay.

Issue

Whether an adjoining landowner engaged in logging near a public road owed a duty of reasonable care to inspect or otherwise attend to the condition of a roadside tree on the adjacent right-of-way, and whether the evidence was sufficient to let the case go to the jury. More specifically, the question was whether the evidence supported a duty to conduct an invasive inspection, such as chopping or drilling into the trunk, to discover latent internal decay.

Rule

Except in extreme situations, a landowner's or possessor's attention to the condition of roadside trees is governed by a general standard of reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm, and the existence and scope of any duty to inspect are questions of fact depending on the circumstances of the individual case. The duty cannot be defined by a simple urban-rural classification; relevant circumstances include actual conditions, road use, traffic density, the character of the land, and whether the defendant's activities altered natural conditions or involved the trees. But imposing a duty to cut or drill into a tree to discover hidden decay requires evidence either that the defendant should have been on notice of possible decay in that tree or that such invasive inspection is a common and ordinary method of examining trees generally.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Morales owns a wooded parcel outside Eugene, Oregon, along a paved county road used by commuters between several nearby communities. After a storm, a tree from the edge of her land falls into the road and injures David Kerr. Nina argues she owed no duty as a matter of law because the parcel is in a rural area.

How should a court most likely evaluate Nina's argument?

Explanation. The majority rejected any bright-line rule making duty turn simply on whether land is 'urban' or 'rural.' Except in extreme situations, the possessor's attention to roadside trees is judged under a general standard of reasonable care to prevent unreasonable risk, with scope depending on actual conditions such as road use, traffic density, and land use. Rural location alone does not eliminate duty as a matter of law.